McKane v. Marr & Gordon
Supreme Court of Vermont
vCasu for negligence. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury at the March Term, 1905, Washington County, Munson, J., presiding'. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted. The opinion fully states the case.
Read the full summary
vCasu for negligence. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury at the March Term, 1905, Washington County, Munson, J., presiding'. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted. The opinion fully states the case. This case'has been once before in the Supreme Court; see 77 Vt. 7. The admission of evidence relating to the powder-man was error, because the declaration does not charge defendants with any shortage of duty in that respect; and plaintiff can recover only secundum allegcnta et probata, and can legally prove no material fact which the declaration does'not allege. Thomas…
1Opinion of the Court
Watson J.
The evidence of the plaintiff tended to show that the defendants were engaged as partners in quarrying granite and that the plaintiff was in their employ as a quarry-man to work on their quarry as a plug driller, and had been employed there for a long time prior to the accident in which he received his injuries; that one O’Hearn had general charge of the work on the quarry, and at the time of the accident the plaintiff was under the general direction of O’Hearn as foreman. It was conceded that O’Hearn was vice-principal. The plaintiff’s evidence further tended to show that on the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- LaFlam v. Missisquoi Pulp Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1902
- Dumas v. StoneSupreme Court of Vermont · 1893
- McKane v. Marr & GordonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1904
3Cited by2 opinions
- Lassasso v. Jones Bros.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1915
- Duggan v. HeaphySupreme Court of Vermont · 1912